bpb_set_class

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful precondition — this applies at the title screen and is expected to precede bpb_start_run — which is genuine behavioral context. It says nothing about whether the call fails mid-run, whether it overwrites a prior selection, or what it returns, leaving real gaps for a state-mutating tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action, then the enum mapping, then the sequencing hint — no filler. The semicolon-chained structure is compact but readable; it earns its length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers both parameters and the call ordering, which is the minimum viable set. It omits the effect of an invalid or out-of-phase call and any statement about return values or state persistence, so an agent still has unanswered questions before invoking it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates all seven class_id values and gives the 0-2 range for loadout, which the bare integer bounds do not explain. The remaining gap is that "loadout" itself is never defined (starting kit? preset?), so the agent knows the valid values but not their meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: choose a class on the title screen, with the full class-id mapping (0=Ranger … 6=Engineer) that the schema lacks. It also names the follow-up tool bpb_start_run. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling bpb_set_loadout, which is a nearby ambiguity, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"标题界面" (title screen) and "随后用 bpb_start_run 开局" establish the context and the ordering constraint, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. whether it can be called mid-run or after a run has started) and no routing to bpb_set_loadout as the alternative for changing loadout later.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.